PlanningRegister.ie
Protected structure · RPS 847 · Dublin City Council

House, 158 Botanic Avenue, Dublin 9

158 Botanic Avenue, Dublin 9

Protected structure on Dublin City Council’s Record of Protected Structures. 5 planning applications at or next to it (within 30 m), 16 within 100 m.

5
at or next to it (30 m)
5
of those, last 10 years
16
within 100 m
Regional
NIAH rating

Where it is as the council maps it

Works that would affect the character of a protected structure need planning permission, even where they would otherwise be exempted development; the council can confirm what needs permission with a Section 57 declaration. Protected structures and planning permission: the guide.

Planning applications at or next to it (within 30 m) 5 applications

Appeals at or next to it (within 30 m) 1 with An Coimisiún Pleanála

Building work started at or next to it (within 30 m) 2 commencement notices

Planning applications elsewhere within 100 m 11 applications

Show 5 more

Appeals elsewhere within 100 m 2 with An Coimisiún Pleanála

Building work started elsewhere within 100 m 7 commencement notices

The record RPS 847

RPS number
847
Name
House
Address
158 Botanic Avenue, Dublin 9
Council
Dublin City Council
Development plan
Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028
NIAH record
50130345 · house · Regional rating (matched by location, 28 m)

Other heritage records here

  • 849 protected structure: House · 26 m
  • 845 protected structure: House · 27 m
  • 846 protected structure: House · 17 m
  • 848 protected structure: House · 9 m
  • 50130344 NIAH building: house · 10 m
  • 50130343 NIAH building: house · 1 m
  • 50130341 NIAH building: house · 25 m
  • 50130342 NIAH building: house · 17 m
Free

Planning report for House, 158 Botanic Avenue, Dublin 9

Every application, appeal and deadline within 500 m, with zoning and heritage, in one report.

No account, no payment. Not a statutory planning search.

Something wrong on this protected structure page, or a record you want corrected or removed? Contact us and we will check it against the source.